Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

[David Levine]

Ken wrote:

> > [Ralph:]
> >Because the sooner we create the prefix, the sooner future new headers
> >can fall under it.  Ken says we discussed this over `Attach'.  Here we
> >are for `Forward'.  Next year it will be another one?

> My recollection is that it actually came up originally for
> Envelope-From, actually.

Both, so this is the third time in nmh history.  Let's settle it once and
for all.

The only responsible choice is to include the prefix.  Otherwise, we
run the risk of messages leaking out with internal pseudoeheader names.
Like this message!

Note that Nmh-Attach and Attach are synonomous.  And all others, except
Envelope-From:, used by nmh originated with MH.

> I don't see the value of having a special Nmh- prefix.

Traceability is valuable.

> If they happen to leak out in the wild,
> they won't harm anything since they're not official headers.

The won't harm anything, but how will Ralph know who to ask to fix it?

Does anyone manually insert "Attach:" into their draft messages?

David